Thread: G wagon hopeless

Originally Posted by lambrover

Seeing as the vehicle has a 95lt tank and as the video shows it has a fuel consumption of 11.7lt per 100km that equats to 812.25km for that tank then it has an other 55lt tank so theres an other 470.25km, thats 1282.5km.


G Wagon - Australian Army

This is not a ****ing compertition, I was just very surprised by your claim that its double fuel consumption and think that needs evidance to back it up.

I feel you dislike the vehicle and its lead you to say these things that arent factual.(just a thought)

I suspect that you're being excessively defensive about a topic you may not actually be qualified to pass judgement on, For starters I Never said double fuel consumption, that would be your interpretation of what I said which was

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

umm., no, nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not much more planning range.

Which is actually a typo because its missing a word.

It should read

"nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not thatmuch more planning range" meaning its got double the fuel on board but doesnt have double the planning range, even given the typo its still a long way of the statement your claiming I made.

the on highway rated fuel consumption is 11.7l/100k Im not going to dispute that (in actual fact driven correctly you can get it down to the 9's) the problem with that is well, no wait try this...

whats the posted fuel consumption for your vehicle, do you hit that and it never varies? when you go on a drive if you calculate out that your full fuel tank gives you a range of 610KM and point to point you have a 605km trip between 2 fuel points do you take that route with just the fuel on board or do you do something different? if you dont how far are you willing to try to go on a tank? What would happen if I bolted about 2T of armour onto it? then hooked up a trailer? then stuck a quartet of full size gruntapedes into it with full patrol order?

mate if you're going to put your faith in the video at the bottom of that page you know that thats a promo video, right?, which has about as much grounding in reality as an ipswichian stoneomuppet. (you know like the one with the 3 gaywagons tailgaiting over obstacles, or "flashing" through water crossings, or going sideways off road at high speed, Im quietly VERY confident that that's not how they teach the course)

You've just encountered one of my favorite pet hates they're (and this is the automotive industry in general) quite willing to show you what the peak of each value is just not what happens when you try to operate outside of the controlled conditions it was all tested in.


Now as for the qualifications thing... I have to be qualified to work on them because the ADF loves its buerocratical red tape that way. To me its just another computer on another engine thats been shoe horned in with too much unrequired crap that we could easily do away with if only we could convince people to stop being so freaking lazy and to actually do some proper learning and take responsibility.

Please consider yourself invited to come and peruse the documentation I have for both of the vehicles in question in person.

and yes, I agree, the busmaster operators and maintainers courses have gone downhill since I did them.

Regarding LR not bidding for the Defender replacement, from my understanding of Project LAND 121 , the goal was not just a bunch of Defender replacements.

(I Thought) The overall goal was to have a single manufacturer supply the entire fleet (except specific, specialized vehicles), from small 4x4 vehicles right up to road trains, with everything in between. It wasn't just to supply the vehicles, but also to provide the logistics chain, deeper level maintenance and engineering support for the whole lot of 'em for 25 (?) years.

With that in mind, there are VERY few manufacturers with a product line that could meet the requirement. I don't know if an alliance / consortium of manufacturers was an allowable option.

There are certainly some very good engineering and economics reasons to go down that path, but the cynic in me does wonder why it was written up as a pseudo sole supplier contract..

Originally Posted by newhue

I'm glad you are so blinded by your well engineered Defender. My sway bar fell off on the weekend, just another quality bit added to the list.

As for well designed maybe so, but you could hardly say LR have actively tried to keep it current. Why do they only sell 20 or 30 a month, I don't think it's all supply issues.

Blindered by my 14 year old Tdi and my new TDCi that keep on keeping on when EVERYTHING around them fall down,thems are the facts.Why did the sway bar fall off?,do you get it serviced?,do you actually check over the vehicle after a trip?,it would have been loose for a long time before it ''fell off''. Pat

Originally Posted by peter5111

Regarding LR not bidding for the Defender replacement, from my understanding of Project LAND 121 , the goal was not just a bunch of Defender replacements.

(I Thought) The overall goal was to have a single manufacturer supply the entire fleet (except specific, specialized vehicles), from small 4x4 vehicles right up to road trains, with everything in between. It wasn't just to supply the vehicles, but also to provide the logistics chain, deeper level maintenance and engineering support for the whole lot of 'em for 25 (?) years.

With that in mind, there are VERY few manufacturers with a product line that could meet the requirement. I don't know if an alliance / consortium of manufacturers was an allowable option.

There are certainly some very good engineering and economics reasons to go down that path, but the cynic in me does wonder why it was written up as a pseudo sole supplier contract..

all primary vehicle classes in a single manufacturer

mercedes can
toyota can (though their larger parent trucks are complete crap)
ford can
man can
isuzu can
tata can
volvo can

thats 7 and Im not even getting obscure by listing parent/sibling companies yet., sorry yes i am,, the larger toyota stuff is not branded toyota.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Yes more that Land Rover, after all the main customers for Land Rover were former British commonwealth countries and even Australia is replacing them. The Yanks and Canada don't use them so if you were to count the number of Land Rovers being used by militaries anywhere, you'll likely find that the number of HMMWV used by the US alone outnumbers them.

Hold on, the comment was more Hilux's are used world wide than Land Rovers.

Dont think this is the case, and yes certain groups ( not genuine army units ) use the Hilux as weapons platform, but these are civilian vehicles, not militarised versions of a Hilux. I was questioning that.

The US Military as got just about more everything than anybody else any way, so its a unfair comparison...

I did read the G wagon will not fit into the new light transport aircraft we have just purchased.

The militarised Defender Puma, is used by a number of army s world wide, I have no idea if its good or bad,but someones using it..

http://www.armedforces-int.com/artic...for-radio.html

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

all primary vehicle classes in a single manufacturer

mercedes can
toyota can (though their larger parent trucks are complete crap)
ford can
man can
isuzu can
tata can
volvo can

thats 7 and Im not even getting obscure by listing parent/sibling companies yet., sorry yes i am,, the larger toyota stuff is not branded toyota.

So Toyota trucks would be Hino
but I didnt know MAN made small 4x4's ?? Steyr Puch perhaps

Wouldn't it be funny if we were somehow at war with Germany again? Them buggers would know exactly how to take em out, come to think of it, they probably have got and undetectable explosive device fitted from the factory where they were made for that very reason. Times have changed so have a bit of fun. Sure it irks me the most because our army is buying vehicles from a former mortal enemy, but so do all the people who decide to own Jap cars. Just me..fire away!!!!
Regards
Robbo

Originally Posted by robbotd5

Wouldn't it be funny if we were somehow at war with Germany again? Them buggers would know exactly how to take em out, come to think of it, they probably have got and undetectable explosive device fitted from the factory where they were made for that very reason. Times have changed so have a bit of fun. Sure it irks me the most because our army is buying vehicles from a former mortal enemy, but so do all the people who decide to own Jap cars. Just me..fire away!!!!
Regards
Robbo

Somehow I doubt it
I don't get why we're getting snippy with each other over things like fuel economy.
Jeez, we just had the soapbox shut down because it was getting "a tad vitriolic", lets not do that here.
Like it or not, The G Wagen is a new chapter in the ADFs vehicular history.
Better, worse or the same is the Landies is yet to be seen, for now they're just different.
Can't we all play nicely?
No need to start slinging accusations and thinly veiled insults, if you've got an issue with someone, shoot them a PM or something.

Smile people, Monday is nearly over
Cheers
Muppet